So, so many things we learned in science class(14) have turned out not to be true.

Same here. I learned that the periodic table had 103 entries (last time I checked it had 118). I learned that everything alive was either a plant or an animal (never mind that bacteria, protists, and fungi aren't in either of those groups). I learned that the solar system had nine planets. I learned that protons and neutrons were fundamental particles. (How will I recover from unlearning all of that?)

So, so many things we learned in science class(14) have turned out not to be true.

Same here. I learned that the periodic table had 103 entries (last time I checked it had 118). I learned that everything alive was either a plant or an animal (never mind that bacteria, protists, and fungi aren't in either of those groups). I learned that the solar system had nine planets. I learned that protons and neutrons were fundamental particles. (How will I recover from unlearning all of that?)

Henry

I thought that I was old!

--------------"Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy."

Topic creation got a bit out of hand for a while. I'm trying to generalize topics as the need arises, thus this one goes from being only about one politician's cluelessness on global warming to a general thread with some notice of the one politician.

Topic creation got a bit out of hand for a while. I'm trying to generalize topics as the need arises, thus this one goes from being only about one politician's cluelessness on global warming to a general thread with some notice of the one politician.

Hi Wes.

I think this might go to board mechanics, but is there any way to have a birthday threads aggregator somewhere? Would avoid new topics when original one is weirdly named...

Also, I know these threads don't seem relevant, but they always put a smile on one's face, which is relevant.

--------------"Hail is made out of water? Are you really that stupid?" Joe G

"I have a better suggestion, Kris. How about a game of hide and go fuck yourself instead." Louis

"The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is that vampires are allergic to bullshit" Richard Pryor

Topic creation got a bit out of hand for a while. I'm trying to generalize topics as the need arises, thus this one goes from being only about one politician's cluelessness on global warming to a general thread with some notice of the one politician.

Good, now maybe you could move all the posts on the Bathroom Wall this past week referring to global warming to here too?

--------------If you need a man-made book to beleive in a God who is said to have created the universe, of what value is your faith? You might as well worship an idol.

I have a request. Can there be a thread somewhere that we can debate the connections, if any, between anti-evolutionism and global warming denialism? I see such a connection but I'd like to know what others think.

I'd be all for it, mostly because I don't get global warming denial and would love to read a succinct explanation for the argument and mindset.

Near as I can tell though, it appears the same style of "logic" is used in each groups' arguments. They may well be made up of the same people for all I know, but if so I can't figure out why.

Quote (OgreMkV @ June 28 2011,12:26)

I personally think that global warming denial is exactly like creationism.

There is a small group of 'leaders' (Fred Singer is one) who knows that they are spreading lies, but have a good reason for doing so (related to finances).

Then there are the 'unwashed masses' who believe them for whatever reason: Republicans who have full trust in what their GOP leaders say, people who hate any form of government intrusion, industry workers who view it as a threat to their jobs, etc.

These guys are in full thrall to the leaders who know they are peddling lies. Just like the denzions of UD are in thrall of Dembski, Behe, and Meyer who are smart enough to know better.

Quote (fnxtr @ June 28 2011,21:50)

One of the authors of "Merchants of Doubt", whose name escapes me, was on Mothercorp (CBC) this morning. She pointed out that many of the climate change deniers are the same people who were previously ozone-hole deniers, tobacco->cancer deniers, and so on. Not just the same "fog up the science window" tactics, the very same people. I was waiting for her to add evolution-deniers to the list, but maybe it's in the book.

Quote (sledgehammer @ June 29 2011,00:27)

Seems to me that the common theme here is science denial:"It's those know-it-all, arrogant scientists trying to tell us what's what. They are the source of all our problems, and the reason the world is going to Hell on a Harley. Life was so much simpler when we were all ignorant and easily manipulated by those in power, and it's so much more comforting to be sheep, and place our trust in the anointed shepherds."

"hoax", "fraud", "IPCC are godless homocommies", "Algoremanbearpig is fat and flies huge planes around between his empty climate controlled manbearpigcaves", "didn't you hear they made it all up" or "Climategate" is grounds for dismissal and hurling of insults with preening nerd justificationisms

how does that sound? muuuah

Quote (Badger3k @ June 29 2011,08:46)

Most of those who are in the Denier camp seem to advocate that humans are not doing anything that can affect the environment and cause any warming. That is the most common usage of the term, since to most people "global warming" = "anthropogenic global warming". Thus your first choice would be a Denier, while the other two are more in the "accept that AGW is real, and we're trying to figure out how to respond to it".

At least, that's the way I see it. Could be wrong, tho'.

Quote (OgreMkV @ June 29 2011,09:31)

I agree with this. No sane person disagrees that the Earth is getting warmer. The ten hottest years on record have all occurred in the last 13 years.

When 'global warming' is bandied about, it is most commonly meant to be 'human-caused global warming'. Which, strangely is not up for debate either, by any climate scientist that I'm aware of (Singer doesn't count).

As far as the rest, if human activity is causing global warming, then we have two choices

1) Stop causing it2) Continue causing it and live with the consequences

Much too much to get into right now though.

Quote (Robin @ June 29 2011,09:35)

Quote (Trubble @ June 29 2011,00:19)

Mind if I ask for a definition of terms here?

Have at it!

Quote

What exactly constitutes a global warming denier?

An excellent question! Let's see what our options are:

Quote

Are you a denier if you agree global warming is occurring, but that various natural causes are more to blame than human activity?

Mmm...probably not.

Quote

How about if you agree global warming is real, but that the impact in future will be less catastrophic than suggested by some? Is that denial?

I'd say no.

Quote

How about if you agree global warming is occurring, and human activity is the main driver, but reversing it is impractical and we'd be better off finding ways to adapt?

Ummm...still no.

Quote

And before any of you zealots...

Yep, THAT would be it!

Quote

...jump on me, I'm not advocating any of those positions. I just find it strange that such a sharp demarcation is drawn on an area of research that is really still in its early stages.

See...this kind of defensiveness is a real clue that you have an agenda. People without agendas merely ask, "what's a global warming denier?" and then discuss the concept. By immediately distancing yourself from the issue ('no really...I don't have a dog in this fight!!!') and at the same time calling use "zealots", you've tipped your hand.

The demarcation is easy - anyone who denies the reality of the data suggesting that the planet is warming and the contribution to said warming by human activity is a pretty straight forward demarcation. Oh...and the area of research isn't in the early stages; it's been going on for quite some time.

Tsk tsk...

Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ June 29 2011,12:08)

Quote (Trubble @ June 29 2011,00:19)

Mind if I ask for a definition of terms here? What exactly constitutes a global warming denier?

Are you a denier if you agree global warming is occurring, but that various natural causes are more to blame than human activity?

Yes.

Quote

How about if you agree global warming is real, but that the impact in future will be less catastrophic than suggested by some? Is that denial?

It depends on the specifics. Mealy mouthed claims of "less catastrophic" Yes.

Some things are quite clear, such as sea level rise, melting of arctic sea ice, increased extremes in recipitation / drought. If someone will acknowledge that these will increase but not be catastrophic I would like to see them tell the victims that the effects were not catastrophes, just mild inconveniences.

Quote

How about if you agree global warming is occurring, and human activity is the main driver, but reversing it is impractical and we'd be better off finding ways to adapt?

No.

Quote

And before any of you zealots jump on me, I'm not advocating any of those positions. I just find it strange that such a sharp demarcation is drawn on an area of research that is really still in its early stages.

Quote (midwifetoad @ June 29 2011,12:34)

I agree that warming is happening, that humans are a primary cause, and that it could be unpleasant and expensive to protect (or abandon) coastal cities.

I simply think the only way to mitigate or reverse the trend is to move toward nuclear power, preferably thorium, which produces no byproducts with military applications, and which is well understood, and has been for 50 years.

I am sad that the people who are concerned with warming are mostly opposed to the only viable solution.

I think fusion energy is a fantasy, maybe centuries away.

Solar and wind have so many undesirable side costs that I think they will never compete with nuclear.

Nuclear can be used to produce alcohol and hydrogen, which are the only fuels likely to replace gasoline.

"SpOILed" is just another "drill-baby-drill" tome. "This film will change the way you think!" We can't drill here or there, while China laughs at us, etc. Same old crap. I used to be a film critic before I entered grad school, and am not easily fooled by naifs.

I have not been able to find out much about "Sex and Money," so I cannot say anything about it, but Kevin's films have really been tanking on iMDb, including "After..." which was the one effort of his which did intrigue me.

Quote

Kevin has written, co-written, and edited over 40 books, both fiction and non-fiction.

I deny that my globe is any warmer than anything else in my living room!

Quote (OgreMkV @ June 29 2011,13:35)

Nuclear is dead. Whether or not is a viable technical solution, it is economically and socially dead tech.

1) It is not economic. I have compared the various techs and nuclear is about half the cost of solar and ten percent more expensive than wind power.

For the same price as a new (current technology, no future tech) nuclear plant, a utility can build an equivalent capacity (not name plate, but actual production capacity) of wind power AND a multi-megawatt storage system for base load production.

Plus, the wind farm can be completely on-line in less than a year. The nuclear plant will not even begin production once construction has started for between 6-16 years.

The cost of nuclear based electricity has remained the same over the last 30 years, while the cost of wind and solar have dropped considerably.

2) Solar and Wind with storage can provide baseload power, so that's a non-issue. Spain has several molten salt solar thermal plants. The most current is only 20MW, but can also provide power for 15 hours with zero sunlight.

You don't mention 'so many undesirable side costs', but I've been studying this subject for 2-3 years now and I haven't found any 'undesirable side costs'.

3) Any electricity source can be used to make hydrogen. But hydrogen is not the only thing that could conceivably replace gasoline. Top of the line (still expensive) pure electric vehicles can currently achieve 300 miles per charge (at highway speeds).* There are electric semi-trucks that can pull standard trailers for in-town delivery purposes. If you eliminate cross-country trucks, then fossil fuel vehicles would no longer be needed.

Like, I said, I've been looking at this for years. If it's a choice between nuclear and fossil. Then I'm all for nuclear.

If you throw renewables (wind and solar) into the choices, then forget nuclear and go for wind and solar.

*Personally speaking, I haven't driven more than 250 miles in one day in over 7 years. If you skip one driving vacation, then I haven't driven over 250 miles in over 17 years).

Quote (Glen Davidson @ June 29 2011,15:07)

Quote (midwifetoad @ June 29 2011,12:34)

I simply think the only way to mitigate or reverse the trend is to move toward nuclear power, preferably thorium, which produces no byproducts with military applications, and which is well understood, and has been for 50 years.

Not so. The US has made and exploded a U-233 bomb. Its critical mass is somewhat greater than plutonium, much less than U-235.

Nevertheless, due to radiation issues, making U-233 weapons is considered to be difficult, and thus the thorium cycle by itself is likely to impede proliferation.

Of course there are other issues, like the fact that fairly highly enriched uranium (although far less than weapon-grade, something like 25% enriched) would be needed to begin the fuel cycle, and, due to relatively poor U-233 breeding, enriched uranium would necessarily continue to be input, at least in any reactors made thus far. So the whole uranium issue isn't exactly gone, but perhaps would be manageable (weapons grade U-235 or plutonium never needing to be involved, at least).

Since transuranic elements would be little made, the thorium cycle itself would create only fairly short-lived isotopes (order of centuries at most), although the uranium inputs would continue to produce some of the longer-lived transuranics--unless very highly enriched uranium were in fact used (actually, via U-236 even HEU would produce some transuranics, but relatively little). Still, less of the long-term radiation poisons would result.

I can't detail why, but it's thought that thorium reactors would operate more inherently safely than, say, pressurized uranium reactors (which can be quite safe, IMO). So there's another plus.

There are worthwhile advantages to thorium--especially the quantity available--and so it's probably worth pursuing. I just wonder why it gets such glowing press. Worst of all in that respect is that people will say that thorium was ignored because it doesn't produce plutonium, when in fact lightwater reactors are not very good producers of it either--one of the reasons why they are pushed in this world. True, reprocessing can yield useful plutonium, but it's still expensive, and the yield isn't nearly as good as natural uranium reactors using graphite or heavy water as moderators (the Soviets did use power reactors to breed plutonium, in fact, one reason Chernobyl was unsafe and used graphite as moderator).

Quote

I am sad that the people who are concerned with warming are mostly opposed to the only viable solution.

It's far from perfect, but yes, nuclear actually works, and could help transitionally. I'd rather it not be the long-term "solution" for power production.

Quote

Solar and wind have so many undesirable side costs that I think they will never compete with nuclear.

Never? Why not? Thin-film solar might someday be fairly cheap (nothing is known to prevent this), and storage might come down as well. Wind will never be cheap compared to non-capture coal, but should be useful as a supplement--not a bad price when warming is factored in, yet it's limited and incapable of reasonable baseload generation.

But it's very annoying to get the hand-waving "costs are coming down" when nuclear vs. solar is being discussed. Who cares? Costs have always been coming down, and they're still high even without the heavy added cost of storage, which isn't even slightly realistic at present.

No one who says solar is competitive explains how it is. They don't bother with our pathetic level of detail, because, well, the details aren't friendly to such claims.

Quote

Nuclear can be used to produce alcohol and hydrogen, which are the only fuels likely to replace gasoline.

Yes, but we're still far from that being affordable. Interestingly, though, nuclear using electrolysis at high temperatures (which nukes can provide quite readily) boosts efficiency clear up to 50%, from 30%. 50% isn't anything very impressive either, however.

Glen Davidson

Quote (Dale_Husband @ June 30 2011,00:59)

I've always been opposed to nuclear power. It's too damned expensive, and too dangerous! People have died because of it! How many people have been killed by wind farms or solar panels? None that I know of! Sure, some birds may be killed by wind farms. Cats also kill birds, but you don't consider that reason to never have them around, do you?

If we could have nearly the entire Sahara Desert covered by wind farms and solar panel stations, Africa would probably be freed from depending on any other energy source. And that must scare the fossil fuel companies $#itless!

Quote (Dale_Husband @ June 30 2011,01:04)

Robin, my admiration for you just shot up 100 points! Bravo!

Quote (Trubble @ June 30 2011,15:55)

Quote (Robin @ June 29 2011,09:35)

See...this kind of defensiveness is a real clue that you have an agenda. People without agendas merely ask, "what's a global warming denier?" and then discuss the concept. By immediately distancing yourself from the issue ('no really...I don't have a dog in this fight!!!') and at the same time calling use "zealots", you've tipped your hand.

Great. That's the very reaction I wanted to preempt. My fault, I probably should have approached the counter with more care, like George placing his order with the Soup Nazi.*

I used "you zealots" as a tongue-in-cheek reference to the kind of person who would immediately see my questions as masking some kind of anti-science agenda. In retrospect, perhaps a bad choice of words, but I didn't actually think people here would be that sensitive.

My "agenda" was to try to elaborate the denier label. It seems to be thrown around pretty carelessly at times, so I was curious where people here draw the line. I gave specific examples in order to get specific answers, instead of generalities. Several people provided thoughtful answers. To them, thanks.

My own view is that global warming is real, is serious, and is at least largely caused by human activity. But I also think drastic action is impractical right now, so we should be looking at what is realistically doable. I know some would label that view as "denial", which is why I asked.

Also for the record, I've been coming to this site almost daily for about five years, mainly for the funny and to keep up with the creationism issue, which I find fascinating. I just don't make posts, because I don't have any particular expertise in science, just a layman's interest and an undergrad anthro degree.

Quote

Oh...and the area of research isn't in the early stages; it's been going on for quite some time.

Well, I guess it's all relative. If you're sitting in a doctor's waiting room, an hour is "quite some time." Genetics research has been going on for about a century. It seems to me global warming research didn't get serious attention until the 1980s, making it a relatively new field (my stereo speakers are older than that). Yes, I misspoke to say it's in its early stages, but I still think there's a lot more work needed on some critically important questions.

Quote

Tsk tsk...

Do I feel chastened? Hmmmm... No.

* For the humour-impaired or terminally suspicious, no, I'm not comparing anyone here with Nazis. It's just a Seinfeld reference. You could look it up.

Quote (Dale Husband @ June 30 2011,23:38)

Actually, the foundations for global warming research extend all the way back to the end of the 19th Century. It actually started with this scientist:

However people here throw the denier label around (rightly, wrongly or indifferently) denialism itself is a topic of study in its own right. The commonalities between creationist anti-science denialism and the anti-science denialism that is involved in AGW denial are stark. The same applies to any anti-science denialism I can think of. I used to have some proper resources around here somewhere, I'll see if I can dig them up.

Like anything, there's a spectrum of denial, and I don't think mere ignorance falls on it. Most people I encounter who are pro/anti AGW are pretty ill informed about it, and seem to hold those positions for other reasons. I realise anecdote =/= data, but I can hardly count my parents (for example) as AGW deniers because they simply know nothing about it, and the tiny about they do claim to know is derived solely from their choice of newspaper (The Daily Mail.....yes, it is that bad, feel my pain!). They engage in some denialist type behaviour, but they aren't informed enough to be denialists proper. This applies to the majority of creationists and other species of denialists too. They simply haven't given the subjects they are denying the effort and study they require to even engage in denialism.They might be resistant to evidence initially, but the majority of people are open to some form of new information. Obviously! Otherwise bugger all would ever change, and change it does! ;-)

http://www.greenpeace.org/usa........a.... : ExxonSecrets, a project of Greenpeace which documents in interactive and graphic form the connections between global warming denialists and their corporate supporters, including political think-tanks.

http://cdiac.ornl.gov/:....: The Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center (CDIAC) is the primary climate-change data and information analysis center of the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE).

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/:....: Global Warming Art is the result of a dream that the public and educators should have easy access to the same data and results that have framed the scientific discussion of global warming and climate change.

http://www.aip.org/history....ex.htm: This Website, created by Spencer Weart, supplements his much shorter book, which tells the history of climate change research as a single story. On this Website you will find a more complete history in dozens of essays on separate topics, occasionally updated.

That cesspool of Young-Earth Creationism, Answers in Genesis, has weighed in on the issue of global warming, coming down firmly on the side of denialism. I’m not surprized, since I always knew Creationism to be a form of evolution denialism. Denialists tend to flock together and be denialists about more than one subject, and this proves it:

Let us focus on the statements that make this piece so unscientific, if not downright rediculous.

Quote

Oddly, the church has had little to say on the issue and has made scant use of Scripture to evaluate the alleged problem.

Of course not! When the books of the Bible were being written, climate science didn’t even exist!

Quote

It will be shown that the Bible provides sufficient counsel to enable Christians to evaluate the claims of global warming and arrive at a confident position that is in accord with real science.

That’s a tall order, since there is no real science in the Bible.

Quote

The contention that man’s activities are causing global warming, as described in the media and by its advocates, is a myth. There is no reason either biblically or scientifically to fear the exaggerated and misguided claims of catastrophe as a result of increasing levels of man-made carbon dioxide (CO2).

They use “science” only when it suits them. That’s as bad and dishonest as denying it completely.

Quote

Al Gore contends that the greatest moral issue of our times is global warming. In addition, he and others characterize global warming, which he considers to be predominately caused by man, as a moral, ethical and spiritual challenge.

Making Al Gore the primary issue instead of the actual data is itself a serious weakness.

Quote

If he is right, then Christians should examine this issue and take a strong biblical position. Moral, ethical and spiritual issues are the domain of the church.

In other words, people should never think for themselves, but just let the church, and its interpretation of the Bible, tell them what to think.

Quote

Obviously, not even all creationists will agree with every assertion in this paper.

Why even mention that as an issue? Oh, because you expect all creationists to agree with every assertion in the Bible.

Quote

The spiritual implications of accepting evolution have been eloquently and comprehensively argued by many creationist organizations. Yet, for far too long the creation-evolution debate has been viewed by many, even in the church, as an abstract, academic topic with little relevance to real life.

Actually, most people in the church accept evolution outright, but you don’t want to admit that, do you?

Quote

Man-made global warming is a direct product of evolutionary thinking, and the potential impacts are very applicable to real life.

Confusing words here. I think he meant “The man-made global warming hypothesis is a direct product of evolutionary thinking.” In any case, that first part is a falsehood, since the issue of lines of organisms changing over time has nothing to do with climate change.

Quote

Proposed secular solutions to the alleged claims of global warming will directly impact everyone who depends on fossil fuels for their current life style. The issue of global warming presents biblical creationists with an opportunity to demonstrate not only the efficacy of Scripture in addressing life’s issues, but also to show how ignoring Scripture leads to unnecessary, expensive, and harmful actions.

Sure, just as unearthing and burning fossil fuels is never harmful. Tell that to the people living around the Gulf of Mexico, where that oil spill from BP’s broken well ruined the waters and the coast last year!

Quote

God is the creator of the universe. In His Word, the Bible, God has addressed every area of life (family, state, church, science, man, sin, etc.). God’s Word is truth. The revelation given to us in Scripture is sufficient to enable man to understand the world around him and make decisions that will honor God and benefit mankind. When faced with a challenge, a follower of Christ should first ask, “What has God said that will help me understand this issue and respond in a manner that honors Him?”

There follows a list of terms associated with the subject of climate change that is generally accurate.

Quote

Before our country commits to spending billions (probably trillions) of dollars on CO2 reduction, we need to consider what light the Bible can shed on this issue.

Strange that Answers in Genesis never says anything about the wars that have been fought in Afghanistan or Iraq or about the actions of the state of Israel, maybe because like most Christian fundamentalists, they blindly support those wars and Israel, no matter what. See this earlier entry for details: http://dalehusband.wordpress.com/2009.......ossible

Quote

Exactly why are global warming advocates so concerned about burning fossil fuels and the harvesting of forests? It must be kept in mind that global warming advocates are predominantly evolutionists. Al Gore readily admits that he is an evolutionist (Gore 2006, p. 160).

Evolution had nothing to do with the known processes of climate change, past or present.

Quote

Accordingly, they believe that there was a time in the distant past when earth’s atmosphere contained a much higher percentage of CO2 (over 21%) and no oxygen (O2). They believe the earth’s atmosphere developed O2 only as a result of photosynthesis by plants or bacteria (Bergman and Renwick 2003, p. 137). Advocates believe that forests, especially tropical rain forests, are the largest reservoir for storing carbon and generating oxygen on land. This helps explain their strong desire to protect rain forests. From an evolutionary perspective it is easy to see why preserving forests and reducing CO2 is important, even if the projected catastrophes are unfounded or exaggerated.

Studies of rocks from billions of years ago support these conclusions, even without reference to evolution. Plants and cyanobacteria DO release oxygen into the atmosphere. There are vast amounts of plant matter in the tropical rain forests. You need no knowledge of or belief in evolution to understand these facts.

Quote

The Bible provides frank and absolutely reliable direction for every moral issue experienced by mankind.

No it doesn’t! Read the book of Joshua to see a campaign of conquest and genocide by the ancient Hebrews, done under God’s total approval. Would this writer claim that genocide is moral?

Quote

The biblical position on moral issues like abortion and homosexuality are clear to those who accept the inspiration of Scripture and who understand the straightforward implications of Scripture on these issues, but other issues require thoughtful study of Scripture.

The Bible actually does not address the modern issue of abortion (though fundamentalists will twist biblical passages to make it appear otherwise) and it must be noted that Jesus himself said nothing about homosexuality. Do Christians really follow Jesus when they bash homosexuals based on either Old Testament laws or the writings of Paul, who wasn’t even an original disciple of Jesus?

Quote

The Bible-science movement is keenly interested in determining the original intent of biblical passages. A joint study by the Creation Research Society and the Institute for Creation Research called Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth (RATE) illustrates this point. The study team included a Hebrew scholar, Dr. Steven Boyd, whose task was to determine if the Genesis creation verses are narrative or poetry, a critical question. If the passages are poetry then they merely illustrate a spiritual truth, but if they are narrative then they describe real events and real people. Dr. Boyd determined that Genesis 1:1 to 2:3 is narrative with a 99.996% probability at a 99.5% confidence level (Vardiman et al. 2005, p. 690).

When Jesus spoke in parables, was he speaking poetry? Doesn’t look like it. In any case, it doesn’t matter, because the literal meaning of the Genesis accounts is discredited anyway. I said accounts because there are two of them and the other begins at Gen. 2:4. Dr. Boyd seems to have not looked at that one.

Quote

A created atmosphere has purpose, stability, and is more robust than a randomly evolved atmosphere.

Then can this writer explain why we are cursed with hurricanes, tornados, thunderstorms and other disasters resulting from atmospheric distubances? Oh, it must be due to human sin! But since animals and plants also suffer from storms, are they all sinners too?

Quote

Aside from all the other reasons for which God may have created plants, the Bible specifically states that He made them for human and animal food, and this is largely being ignored by global warming advocates.

Aside from some plants being poisonous to us, it must be noted that the effect of global warming on agriculture is indeed a major concern of scientists researching climate change.

Quote

Since all animals and mankind were vegetarians originally, plants were created as a reliable and sustainable source of food.

Idiotic premise leading to a bad conclusion. If many animals became carnivores later, that means they EVOLVED, right? I guess Creationists deny evolution when it offends them and affirms it when it suits their purposes. That’s flatly dishonest.

Quote

As people began eating meat, they became even more dependent on vegetation as a source of food because the animals we eat all must consume multiple pounds of vegetation for each pound of meat produced.

Al Gore himself has called for people to eat less meat, and it is possible that over time more and more people will become vegetarian or vegan. But while the Old Testament laws forbid the eating of certain types of meat, they also calls for animal sacrifice as a regular religious ritual.

Quote

While it is true that harvesting of forest products should be done in line with intelligent use of that ecosystem, unless forests are periodically harvested, allowing new growth and providing a useful product, they have little direct economic benefit for mankind. As the human population increases then it is reasonable to convert forests to the production of food and building material. From a creation perspective there is nothing sacred about preserving forests. They are to be efficiently and effectively managed for the benefit of mankind. Nonetheless, there is little justification for the wanton destruction of forests for short-term economic benefit. As stewards accountable to God we should manage all earth resources with a long-term, biblical, perspective.

Unless you also beleive that Jesus will eventually return to save humanity from the anti-Christ. Then you can chop down forests at will and wait for Jesus to bail us out later.

Quote

It should also be noted that as plants began growing and covering the earth following Creation week, they were removing CO2 from the environment. Land plants removed CO2 from the atmosphere while marine plants removed CO2 from the ocean. In addition, marine animals that developed carbonate shells also removed CO2 from the ocean.

The Bible does not actually say any such thing.

Quote

God never rebuked mankind for mining, farming, ranching, or cutting trees for building projects. All of these activities are part of man’s God-given rule over the earth. Throughout Scripture, however, God has repeatedly rebuked man for disobedience to His moral commands.

People who lived thousands of years ago had no idea how limited the Earth really was or how tremendous their populations would eventually get. Hench their limited priorities, which they transmitted to their “Scripture” and put in God’s mouth.

Quote

The Flood likely increased the temperature of the ocean. As we will see later, a warm sea following the Flood helps explain another important post-Flood phenomena, the ice age.

Bull$#it. Ice ages have never been mentioned in the book of Genesis or anywhere else in the Bible.

Quote

At Creation and immediately after the Flood, plants were just beginning to cover the earth yet there was no shortage of oxygen in the atmosphere. God established enough oxygen in the original atmosphere to sustain life throughout the duration of the earth. This highlights the fact that plants are not necessary for generating oxygen.

Clearly, this moron does not know what a “fact” is. It is a confirmed observation. Where is the confirmed observation that plants are not necessary for generating oxygen? Actually, there would have been plants, including algae, in the oceans that could have continued to provide oxygen throughout the flood.

Quote

As an aside, during the Flood every man and animal on the ark would have been classified as an “endangered species” according to current definition. All animal life today is descended from one or a few pairs of animals that were carried on the ark.

If that is true, then all animals should indicate via their genomes a “bottleneck effect” showing that they are all descended from a very few ancestors recently. And by “all animal life” would that include fish, whales, crabs, and other animals that live in the oceans? Could the ark have held all of these species?

Quote

The argument over burning fossil fuels versus ethanol can be reduced to a question of whether it is best to burn old plants or new plants. Burning old plants (fossil fuels) is much more efficient, and therefore “green.”

This is sheer insanity. Ethanol comes from plants growing today that can be grown again and thus ethanol is a renewable resource. By contrast, coal, oil, and other fossil fuels, if they were made during the flood, are indeed nonrenewable. Coal is FAR more polluting than any other fuel, since it is full of impurities that ethanol produced by man from agriculture would not have.

Quote

Considering the total volume of fossil fuel captured in rocks, and the volume of carbonate rocks, it can be seen that a significant amount of CO2 has been removed from the pre-Flood environment (atmosphere and ocean) and locked up in sedimentary formations. Another significant volume of CO2 has been removed since the Flood and is tied up in plants and animals that have subsequently developed. As a result of burying a major proportion of earth’s plant and animal life, the Flood likely caused far greater changes to atmospheric gases than any current global warming scenario.

Strangly, most scientists would agree with this, except they would see the process as taking place over millions of years and due to many local floods rather than only one global flood.

Quote

Global warming is described as a worldwide catastrophe by the radical environmentalists and the media. The tribulation of Revelation certainly contains events that sound like some of the dire predictions associated with global warming. Unlike global warming, the tribulation is initiated directly by God, as judgment on sinful mankind, and is a sudden, not a gradual change. People undergoing the tribulation realize that it is from God, as a result of their sinful behavior, but they intentionally refuse to repent. We should not confuse the claims of global warming with tribulation events.

What a convenient disclaimer. I guess if you want to make a rationalization for Big Business to continue abusing the ecosystems of the world, this is a perfect example. I suppose they could have claimed that people would blame global warming for the disasters depicted in Revelation and thus refuse to repent, but that would have violated their own assumptions about people who do not follow their assumptions (because they claim such people are not only mistaken, but downright evil and stupid). Clearly, this writer didn’t think things through before he submitted this huge load of nonsense to Answers in Genesis. He was too obsessed with slandering opponents of Creationism.

Quote

God is in absolute control of His creation. He is the Creator (Genesis 1 and 2). God destroyed His creation in the days of Noah with a worldwide flood (Genesis 7–9). God sets the boundary for the seas (Job 38:8–11, Psalm 104:9, Jeremiah 5:22) and controls the weather: lightning (Job 28:26, 37:3), hail (Job 38:22, Psalm 147:17, Haggai 2:17), rain (Job 28:26, 37:6, Psalm 147:8), and snow (Job 37:6, 38:22, Psalm 147:16). Someday God will destroy this earth and establish a new heaven and a new earth (Revelation 21:1). Man is not in control of the weather and this present earth is temporary.

Is this writer sure he is not describing the gods of Hinduism? No wonder some Christian fundamentalists claim that AIDS, earthquakes, hurricanes and other natural disasters are punishments from God. With a sadistic God like this, who needs Satan?

The rest of that article is just more fallacious and downright fraudulant crap, repeating and detailing the earlier unsupported assertions, all based on the blind assumption that the statements in the Bible are all literally true. They also recycle many global warming denialist canards.

--------------If you need a man-made book to beleive in a God who is said to have created the universe, of what value is your faith? You might as well worship an idol.

Sorry to take so long to respond to this, Trubble - was away on a trip. Anywhooo...

Quote (Trubble @ June 30 2011,15:55)

Quote (Robin @ June 29 2011,09:35)

See...this kind of defensiveness is a real clue that you have an agenda. People without agendas merely ask, "what's a global warming denier?" and then discuss the concept. By immediately distancing yourself from the issue ('no really...I don't have a dog in this fight!!!') and at the same time calling us "zealots", you've tipped your hand.

Great. That's the very reaction I wanted to preempt. My fault, I probably should have approached the counter with more care, like George placing his order with the Soup Nazi.*

Funny. However, yet again you imply that in order to deal with this subject, we (the Global Warming Nazis) need to handled with defensively (that's what George did AND still didn't get any soup). Seems an odd way of being "neutral" on the subject. Just sayin'...

Quote

I used "you zealots" as a tongue-in-cheek reference to the kind of person who would immediately see my questions as masking some kind of anti-science agenda. In retrospect, perhaps a bad choice of words, but I didn't actually think people here would be that sensitive.

Here's the thing - if you actually thought we wouldn't be "that sensitive" AND you didn't really have an agenda to poke the bear, you'd have just asked the question neutrally to...you know...start a neutral discussion. Folks who have been here for a long time can toss out tongue-in-cheek comments and get a chortle (or guffaw or giggle or even a reference to their mom**), but your opening with such as a way of introduction smells defensive right off the bat and really does scream "AGENDA!" Sorry if I misinterpreted your message, but that's the way it comes across.

Quote

My "agenda" was to try to elaborate the denier label. It seems to be thrown around pretty carelessly at times, so I was curious where people here draw the line. I gave specific examples in order to get specific answers, instead of generalities. Several people provided thoughtful answers. To them, thanks.

You're welcome.

Quote

My own view is that global warming is real, is serious, and is at least largely caused by human activity. But I also think drastic action is impractical right now, so we should be looking at what is realistically doable. I know some would label that view as "denial", which is why I asked.

Just curious - why didn't you just state this in the first place?

I'm really shocked that anyone would find the above position to be one of denial in that you've not actually denied anything. Not that I don't recognize that there are people out there who are irrational and/or who don't actually take into account what someone actually writes or states, but I really can't believe the majority of folk dealing in this issue are that way. Of course, it has become rather political, so what do I know?

In any event, I certainly don't see the above as falling into the denial category. Seems rather straight forward to me.

Quote

Also for the record, I've been coming to this site almost daily for about five years, mainly for the funny and to keep up with the creationism issue, which I find fascinating. I just don't make posts, because I don't have any particular expertise in science, just a layman's interest and an undergrad anthro degree.

Good to know, though I'm sure you'll forgive those of us who don't know what lurkers are regulars. ;)

Quote

Quote

Oh...and the area of research isn't in the early stages; it's been going on for quite some time.

Well, I guess it's all relative. If you're sitting in a doctor's waiting room, an hour is "quite some time." Genetics research has been going on for about a century. It seems to me global warming research didn't get serious attention until the 1980s, making it a relatively new field (my stereo speakers are older than that). Yes, I misspoke to say it's in its early stages, but I still think there's a lot more work needed on some critically important questions.

Global Warming/Climate Change research has been going on since the 1930s. Guy Stewart Callendar did simple model calculations back in 1938 noting the contribution of CO2 to the increase in temperature. Helmut Lansberg expanded on this back in 1946. This isn't a relatively new field. People have gotten that impression since there was such a media frenzy around the subject in the 80s and because, unfortunately, human memory is short.

The real issue though is that most folks confuse Global Warming science with Global Warming policy. The former may well inspire a stance on the latter, but to blame the former for the need for the latter - as so many denialists seem to do - is just inane. Further, to try to equivocate the former with the latter - as the media and deninalists do with abandon - just makes those folks and their arguments look ignorant and petty.

I don't necessarily disagree that more research is warranted, but I do disagree with the reasons. There aren't any "critically important questions" from a scientific POV. There may well be some (likely a bunch) from a policy POV, but those are not going to be addressed by more research. Those questions can only be addressed by people sitting down and agreeing to discuss issues honestly and agreeing to make hard, fact-based decisions. Period. Whether man's energy use is a 98% factor in climate change or a 0.00342% fact is irrelevant to the question of whether we, as humans, determine that we can affect the current rate of change and whether it is in our interest to do so. The former is a scientific question, the latter is policy question.

Quote

Quote

Tsk tsk...

Do I feel chastened? Hmmmm... No.

Well, I was chastising you for not even doing a quick Google search before making a blanket claim. Given that you appeared defensive and appeared to have an agenda, it seemed that you were just making something up. Even though you apparently aren't starting from an agenda and are actually just a layman doesn't excuse not doing a rudimentary search. Research isn't limited to the professional scientists and really...in this day and age of information, it isn't hard just to check a few sources.

Well, I was chastising you for not even doing a quick Google search before making a blanket claim.

What blanket claim are you referring to? I didn't think I had made one.

Quote

Given that you appeared defensive and appeared to have an agenda, it seemed that you were just making something up.

What "something" appeared to be made up? I asked a question.

Quote

Even though you apparently aren't starting from an agenda and are actually just a layman doesn't excuse not doing a rudimentary search. Research isn't limited to the professional scientists and really...in this day and age of information, it isn't hard just to check a few sources.

What research should I have done to determine what constitutes "climate change denial"? Maybe I could have gone to a few discussion boards and asked some participants? No, wait...

Actually, fuck it, never mind. I have no stomach for this kind of thing. It just makes me grumpy and out of sorts. I'll just go back to lurking.

Well, I was chastising you for not even doing a quick Google search before making a blanket claim.

What blanket claim are you referring to? I didn't think I had made one.

This:

Quote

I just find it strange that such a sharp demarcation is drawn on an area of research that is really still in its early stages.

You then followed with this:

Quote

Well, I guess it's all relative. If you're sitting in a doctor's waiting room, an hour is "quite some time." Genetics research has been going on for about a century. It seems to me global warming research didn't get serious attention until the 1980s, making it a relatively new field (my stereo speakers are older than that). Yes, I misspoke to say it's in its early stages, but I still think there's a lot more work needed on some critically important questions.

...which was not accurate either.

Quote

Quote

Given that you appeared defensive and appeared to have an agenda, it seemed that you were just making something up.

What "something" appeared to be made up? I asked a question.

To elaborate, the way you approached the subject (appearing defensive in your wording, calling folks here "zealots", creating a list of possible vague "exceptions" to the concept of "denialist", and confusing policy issues with science issues lead me (at least) to conclude you had an agenda regarding the subject. Couple that with the blanket statement that global warming science is a "relatively new field" made the claim appear to be completely made up.

Quote

Quote

Even though you apparently aren't starting from an agenda and are actually just a layman doesn't excuse not doing a rudimentary search. Research isn't limited to the professional scientists and really...in this day and age of information, it isn't hard just to check a few sources.

What research should I have done to determine what constitutes "climate change denial"? Maybe I could have gone to a few discussion boards and asked some participants? No, wait...

Sorry...apparently I wasn't clear. I wasn't chastising you for asking a question about global warming denial; I was chastising you for claiming that global warming science is a relatively new field without first doing a rudimentary check to see how long the research has actually been going on.

Quote

Actually, fuck it, never mind. I have no stomach for this kind of thing. It just makes me grumpy and out of sorts. I'll just go back to lurking.

What kind of thing? Being corrected for being inaccurate and incomplete? That's what science is all about. If you're at all interested in science, of which global warming research is a part, then correction is going to be a part of any discussion.

But even that aside, if you've really been a lurker here for as long as you claim, then try just for a brief moment to consider your first post and then our discussion from my POV. You, a professed lurker who could not (by definition) have an established MO in this group of folks, posts a question about denialism with a number of caveats and even a rather inflammatory label ("you zealots"). After five years here you must realize that a good number of anti-science folks come here and post similarly phrased questions hoping that someone here will answer one of the caveat "gotchas" so the poster can than have his or her agenda based quote mine or just an opportunity to gloat and troll. How am I supposed to know the difference between your post and those others? Seriously, what about your post do you think is different from my POV?

And why should anyone here at this point be expected to give any poster the benefit of the doubt, particularly if the poster in question isn't starting a discussion with a neutral post? You had the option of just asking the question without any baggage, but you chose to be tongue-in-cheek and set-up some pretty specific exceptions in an arena you freely admit you aren't well versed in and on a forum you freely admit to being not well known. Why are you surprised I took it wrong and why are you now getting all cranky with my responses?

Actually, what's really odd is that you've chosen to keep on the same track instead of trying to start over or just just admitting that your initial approach didn't work as intended and saying you'd like to address the responses I and others gave to your very specific questions. Why get into all this other noise if you are really interested in the specifics of what constitutes a global warming denialist?

I realize it may look like I'm trying to give you a hard time, and while that partially true (given that you've chosen not to address my comments on the actual science of global warming), I'm also trying to continue the discussion because I'm interested in what your take on it is. I'm interested in other people's thoughts on the subject of both the science and the policy. But I'm not going to let anyone, layman or professional, get away with laziness and inaccuracy.

--------------we IDists rule in design for the flagellum and cilium largely because they do look designed. Bilbo

The only reason you reject Thor is because, like a cushion, you bear the imprint of the biggest arse that sat on you. Louis

Your opening salvo had "agenda" written all over it. The ones who declaim the loudest about not having an agenda are the ones most likely to have one--you protest too much, in other words.

There are two varieties of denialists when it comes to global warming--those who deny that it's happening at all, and those who acknowledge it but deny anthropogenic causes.

Your question, if I understand it, is whether or not a person who acknowledges anthropogenic global warming but doesn't want to take "drastic" measures in response to it may be considered a denialist. Perhaps, but in a completely different discussion and context. Note that your reference to "drastic" measures connotes a bit of an agenda in itself.

--------------Evolution is not about laws but about randomness on happanchance.--Robert Byers, at PT

I was aware of Arrhenius, thanks. He was the first to posit the link between human-generated CO2 and climate change. But his theory was not accepted by the mainstream for many decades.

Some excerpts from the wikipedia pages mentioned above:

Quote

While a few early 20th-Century scientists supported Arrhenius' work, including E. O. Hulburt and Guy Stewart Callendar, most scientific opinion disputed or ignored it through the early 1950s.

and

Quote

In the late 19th century, scientists first argued that human emissions of greenhouse gases could change the climate, but the calculations were disputed. In the 1950s and 1960s, scientists increasingly thought that human activity could change the climate on a timescale of decades, but were unsure whether the net impact would be to warm or cool the climate. During the 1970s, scientific opinion increasingly favored the warming viewpoint. In the 1980s the consensus position formed that human activity was in the process of warming the climate...

...which is why I called it a relatively new field (keep in mind what "relatively" means -- it's not an absolute) and why I referenced the 1980s as when things got serious. On reflection, I was probably off by a decade or so.

I'm mostly interested in the nuts and bolts elements of the work, less than the theoretical underpinnings. Such as the development of reliable models that could tell us, for example, if we reduce CO2 emissions to x level, it will have y effect on sea levels, precipitation, glacier formation, or whatever. It seems to me that work is still at a relatively early stage. But I could well be ignorant about the latest developments.

I was aware of Arrhenius, thanks. He was the first to posit the link between human-generated CO2 and climate change. But his theory was not accepted by the mainstream for many decades.

Some excerpts from the wikipedia pages mentioned above:

Quote

While a few early 20th-Century scientists supported Arrhenius' work, including E. O. Hulburt and Guy Stewart Callendar, most scientific opinion disputed or ignored it through the early 1950s.

and

Quote

In the late 19th century, scientists first argued that human emissions of greenhouse gases could change the climate, but the calculations were disputed. In the 1950s and 1960s, scientists increasingly thought that human activity could change the climate on a timescale of decades, but were unsure whether the net impact would be to warm or cool the climate. During the 1970s, scientific opinion increasingly favored the warming viewpoint. In the 1980s the consensus position formed that human activity was in the process of warming the climate...

...which is why I called it a relatively new field (keep in mind what "relatively" means -- it's not an absolute) and why I referenced the 1980s as when things got serious. On reflection, I was probably off by a decade or so.

I'm mostly interested in the nuts and bolts elements of the work, less than the theoretical underpinnings. Such as the development of reliable models that could tell us, for example, if we reduce CO2 emissions to x level, it will have y effect on sea levels, precipitation, glacier formation, or whatever. It seems to me that work is still at a relatively early stage. But I could well be ignorant about the latest developments.

Did it ever occur to you that giant oil companies, like the supermassive Standard Oil of J. D. Rockerfeller, were trying to interfer with scientific studies that threatened their economic interests even a century ago? Indeed, it was so powerful that the U S government forced it to break up. And we have evidence that ExxonMobil, a direct descendant of Standard Oil, has been funding global warming denialist groups in recent years.

--------------If you need a man-made book to beleive in a God who is said to have created the universe, of what value is your faith? You might as well worship an idol.

I was aware of Arrhenius, thanks. He was the first to posit the link between human-generated CO2 and climate change. But his theory was not accepted by the mainstream for many decades.

Some excerpts from the wikipedia pages mentioned above:

Quote

While a few early 20th-Century scientists supported Arrhenius' work, including E. O. Hulburt and Guy Stewart Callendar, most scientific opinion disputed or ignored it through the early 1950s.

and

Quote

In the late 19th century, scientists first argued that human emissions of greenhouse gases could change the climate, but the calculations were disputed. In the 1950s and 1960s, scientists increasingly thought that human activity could change the climate on a timescale of decades, but were unsure whether the net impact would be to warm or cool the climate. During the 1970s, scientific opinion increasingly favored the warming viewpoint. In the 1980s the consensus position formed that human activity was in the process of warming the climate...

...which is why I called it a relatively new field (keep in mind what "relatively" means -- it's not an absolute) and why I referenced the 1980s as when things got serious. On reflection, I was probably off by a decade or so.

I'm mostly interested in the nuts and bolts elements of the work, less than the theoretical underpinnings. Such as the development of reliable models that could tell us, for example, if we reduce CO2 emissions to x level, it will have y effect on sea levels, precipitation, glacier formation, or whatever. It seems to me that work is still at a relatively early stage. But I could well be ignorant about the latest developments.

Did it ever occur to you that giant oil companies, like the supermassive Standard Oil of J. D. Rockerfeller, were trying to interfer with scientific studies that threatened their economic interests even a century ago? Indeed, it was so powerful that the U S government forced it to break up. And we have evidence that ExxonMobil, a direct descendant of Standard Oil, has been funding global warming denialist groups in recent years.

It gets even worse when there are media outlets that are specifically encouraging disbelief in science and scientists.

--------------Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

Did it ever occur to you that giant oil companies, like the supermassive Standard Oil of J. D. Rockerfeller, were trying to interfer with scientific studies that threatened their economic interests even a century ago? Indeed, it was so powerful that the U S government forced it to break up. And we have evidence that ExxonMobil, a direct descendant of Standard Oil, has been funding global warming denialist groups in recent years.

I didn't know about Standard Oil trying to interfere with science a century ago, but that doesn't surprise me, given what I've read about the robber barons. Do you have a reference? I'm curious to see what studies they tried to quash.

I certainly was aware that the oil companies have given money to global warming denialists. That's well documented.

Am I right in thinking your sticking point here is to do with the use of the word(s) "denial"/"denialist"/"denier"/"denialism"?

If so I gave you (the bare beginnings of) an answer a while back. Tautologous though it sounds, many of the people who might be designated "global warming denialists/deniers" are so designated because they engage in pretty standard denialist tactics. The fact that it's to do with global warming and not other common denialist topics like, say, The Holocaust, evolutionary biology, dose response relationships in medicinal chemistry (think: homeopathy) etc is immaterial. The subject of the denial is not relevant, the techniques/tactics/methods are.

In the things I linked above previously, you can find the beginnings of a discussion about why those terms are used, when and for what reasons.

Thanks, Louis. My original question has been adequately answered, by several people including yourself. I think the "denier" label is sometimes applied to people who I don't think are denying the reality or seriousness of climate change, only going against the mainstream on some of the details or suggested solutions. I think that tactic is counter-productive. But no one here seems to support it, which is good.

My "sticking point" now is that I don't appreciate being accused of having some kind of dishonest agenda, or of being a "dumb sumbitch" too lazy or stupid to use Google. I said earlier I'd go back to lurking, because I don't enjoy this kind of exchange ("Jane, you ignorant slut..."), but I guess I've been sucked in now.

Anyway, my main interest is in exploring the disconnect between the scientific consensus and the public policy side. I think there are a lot of reasons why the general public is still skeptical, and some (not all) of those reasons relate to the way the scientific community overall is handling the issue. This is a teaching moment, and when a student isn't getting it, it's the teacher's responsibility to find a way to get through.

My profession is communications, so crafting messages so they'll resonate with a target audience is something I know a little about. Hence my orientation to this.

Thanks, Louis. My original question has been adequately answered, by several people including yourself. I think the "denier" label is sometimes applied to people who I don't think are denying the reality or seriousness of climate change, only going against the mainstream on some of the details or suggested solutions. I think that tactic is counter-productive. But no one here seems to support it, which is good.

My "sticking point" now is that I don't appreciate being accused of having some kind of dishonest agenda, or of being a "dumb sumbitch" too lazy or stupid to use Google. I said earlier I'd go back to lurking, because I don't enjoy this kind of exchange ("Jane, you ignorant slut..."), but I guess I've been sucked in now.

Anyway, my main interest is in exploring the disconnect between the scientific consensus and the public policy side. I think there are a lot of reasons why the general public is still skeptical, and some (not all) of those reasons relate to the way the scientific community overall is handling the issue. This is a teaching moment, and when a student isn't getting it, it's the teacher's responsibility to find a way to get through.

My profession is communications, so crafting messages so they'll resonate with a target audience is something I know a little about. Hence my orientation to this.

Trubble, I think think you will find (at least in the communication front) that science is losing badly.

There are some 'news' outlets that have specifically been pushing a global warming denial platform. Unfortunately because they say other things that people want to hear (preaching to the choir), their statements about global warming (and other things) are taken at face value by the viewers.

The news has sexy anchors paid megabucks to say what they are told to say. Science has the dry facts and generally unattractive personalities (in both meanings of the word).

Science is hard, belief is easy.

--------------Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

R. Gates says:July 13, 2011 at 7:27 pm“Let’s put it this way, if someone told me we could keep CO2 in the range it’s been during the time our civilizations came into being because the climate was conducive to grain plants which allowed us to even have civilization, or we could allow CO2 to go to levels when human ancestors were tree-shrews and the world was covered with steaming jungles and there were no grains at all…I’ll take the range in which our civilization has come into being. Letting CO2 continually rise, is conducting a huge experiment (rather like rolling the dice) on the future of the planet. Last time I checked, we haven’t got a spare in case we bet wrong”

Those would be the same CO2 levels that allowed the formation of glaciers a mile thick over everything north of Virginia for 100,000 years with 10,000 year interglacial periods. The current interglacial began over 10,000 years ago.

The level of ignorance in your blitherings, Gates, never ceases to amaze me.

Did it ever occur to you that giant oil companies, like the supermassive Standard Oil of J. D. Rockerfeller, were trying to interfer with scientific studies that threatened their economic interests even a century ago? Indeed, it was so powerful that the U S government forced it to break up. And we have evidence that ExxonMobil, a direct descendant of Standard Oil, has been funding global warming denialist groups in recent years.

I didn't know about Standard Oil trying to interfere with science a century ago, but that doesn't surprise me, given what I've read about the robber barons. Do you have a reference? I'm curious to see what studies they tried to quash.

I certainly was aware that the oil companies have given money to global warming denialists. That's well documented.

But what does that have to do with what I posted?

No direct evidence, merely an inference based on what you said and on what I know about the obscenely powerful robber barons themselves. Indeed, I was asking a rhetorical question, not making an assertion.

My point, of course, is that we must always be wary of corporate interference in both scientific research and the communication of such research to the public.

--------------If you need a man-made book to beleive in a God who is said to have created the universe, of what value is your faith? You might as well worship an idol.